Receiving Sacraments at our parish required

[PraiseChrist]

Dear CAF members,

Hello,

1. Are we required to receive the sacraments at our main parish?
2. What about the First Eucharist or First Confession?
3. Also, can you cite any official Church teaching/document/canon law? Thank you!

Have a great feast of the Ascension!

 

[ClearWater]

You can receive the sacraments at any catholic church.

 

[Vico]

Dear CAF members,

Hello,

1. Are we required to receive the sacraments at our main parish?
2. What about the First Eucharist or First Confession?
3. Also, can you cite any official Church teaching/document/canon law? Thank you!

Have a great feast of the Ascension!

In the canon law it does not restrict the faithful to the reception of the sacraments from the proper pastor. Also the primary agent of a child is the parent. There are some necessary preparations however:

CCC 1457 has: “Children must go to the sacrament of penance before receiving Holy Communion for the first time”

CIC

Can. 841 Since the sacraments are the same throughout the universal Church, and belong to the divine deposit of faith, only the supreme authority in the Church can approve or define what is needed for their validity. It belongs to the same authority, or to another competent authority in accordance with can. 838 §§3 and 4, to determine what is required for their lawful celebration, administration and reception and for the order to be observed in their celebration.

Can. 843 §1 Sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.

Can. 913 §1 For holy communion to be administered to children, it is required that they have sufficient knowledge and be accurately prepared, so that according to their capacity they understand what the mystery of Christ means, and are able to receive the Body of the Lord with faith and devotion.

Can. 914 It is primarily the duty of parents and of those who take their place, as it is the duty of the parish priest, to ensure that children who have reached the use of reason are properly prepared and, having made their sacramental confession, are nourished by this divine food as soon as possible. It is also the duty of the parish priest to see that children who have not reached the use of reason, or whom he has judged to be insufficiently disposed, do not come to holy communion.

Can. 107 §1. Through both domicile and quasi-domicile, each person acquires his or her pastor and ordinary.
§2. The proper pastor or ordinary of a transient is the pastor or local ordinary where the transient is actually residing.
§3. The proper pastor of one who has only a diocesan domicile or quasi-domicile is the pastor of the place where the person is actually residing.

Can. 515 §1 A parish is a certain community of Christ’s faithful stably established within a particular Church, whose pastoral care, under the authority of the diocesan Bishop, is entrusted to a parish priest as its proper pastor.

Can. 519 The parish priest is the proper pastor of the parish entrusted to him. He exercises the pastoral care of the community entrusted to him under the authority of the diocesan Bishop, whose ministry of Christ he is called to share, so that for this community he may carry out the offices of teaching, sanctifying and ruling with the cooperation of other priests or deacons and with the assistance of lay members of Christ’s faithful, in accordance with the law.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

In the canon law it does not restrict the faithful to the reception of the sacraments from the proper pastor. Also the primary agent of a child is the parent. There are some necessary preparations however:

CCC 1457 has: “Children must go to the sacrament of penance before receiving Holy Communion for the first time”

CIC

Can. 841 Since the sacraments are the same throughout the universal Church, and belong to the divine deposit of faith, only the supreme authority in the Church can approve or define what is needed for their validity. It belongs to the same authority, or to another competent authority in accordance with can. 838 §§3 and 4, to determine what is required for their lawful celebration, administration and reception and for the order to be observed in their celebration.

Can. 843 §1 Sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.

Can. 913 §1 For holy communion to be administered to children, it is required that they have sufficient knowledge and be accurately prepared, so that according to their capacity they understand what the mystery of Christ means, and are able to receive the Body of the Lord with faith and devotion.

Can. 914 It is primarily the duty of parents and of those who take their place, as it is the duty of the parish priest, to ensure that children who have reached the use of reason are properly prepared and, having made their sacramental confession, are nourished by this divine food as soon as possible. It is also the duty of the parish priest to see that children who have not reached the use of reason, or whom he has judged to be insufficiently disposed, do not come to holy communion.

Can. 107 §1. Through both domicile and quasi-domicile, each person acquires his or her pastor and ordinary.
§2. The proper pastor or ordinary of a transient is the pastor or local ordinary where the transient is actually residing.
§3. The proper pastor of one who has only a diocesan domicile or quasi-domicile is the pastor of the place where the person is actually residing.

Can. 515 §1 A parish is a certain community of Christ’s faithful stably established within a particular Church, whose pastoral care, under the authority of the diocesan Bishop, is entrusted to a parish priest as its proper pastor.

Can. 519 The parish priest is the proper pastor of the parish entrusted to him. He exercises the pastoral care of the community entrusted to him under the authority of the diocesan Bishop, whose ministry of Christ he is called to share, so that for this community he may carry out the offices of teaching, sanctifying and ruling with the cooperation of other priests or deacons and with the assistance of lay members of Christ’s faithful, in accordance with the law.

You have cited the law quite well. Compliments. Your first line does give me pause. However, we are talking in this instance, I gather, primarily about First Reconciliation and First Eucharist.

I have only to add that I assume this question must be from an American. The language of “main parish” is completely foreign to me…and to the Code of Canon Law, for that matter. For the vast majority of Roman Rite Catholics, the CANONICAL parish is established by domicile, as articulated above in Canon 107ff. One does not choose a canonical parish. There is also a relatively small percentage who would qualify to belong to a personal parish – normally I find that those people know who they are.

There are several sacraments, the administration of which necessarily reference one’s parish priest, outside of the danger of death: baptism, confirmation, marriage, and the sacrament of the sick.

That said, although I am retired, it simply would never have occurred to me at any time to administer First Eucharist to someone who was not my own parishioner without conferring with their proper parish priest who has the cura animarum for that person. I would want to understand, above all from him, why the parent(s) were making such an unusual request and what his determination was in the matter.

First reconciliation is different in that one should not have imposed upon one a priest who becomes the only option to whom one must make an exposition of conscience. That is a fundamental principle. The choice properly rests with the penitent.

As Vico has written, competent authority can make other determinations for the licit celebration of sacraments…and without knowing particular law enacted by the bishop of the diocese, it would be very foolhardy for us to say what can or cannot be done. The question of the original poster properly should be directed to the curia of the diocese concerned rather than an Internet forum. This is said in light of:

“Canon 838 §4. Within the limits of his competence, it pertains to the diocesan bishop in the Church entrusted to him to issue liturgical norms which bind everyone.”

 

[Blessedwithfive]

when my husband and I were living in El Paso and attending church there, we brought our children back to Ohio where we were married and where our extended family attends to have the children baptized. No problem. We did the prep work in Texas and then spoke to the pastor in Ohio and he was happy to help.

Later we brought one of the kids back to Ohio from Connecticut for first communion because they missed the date at our church in Connecticut due to illness. No problem again.

Lastly, our church often sends confirmation kids to another parish for the sacrament if they are unable to attend our scheduled date due to a conflict or illness. Not a big deal.

From what I understand all the prep work needs to be done at the “home” parish but the sacrament can take place other places. Just save the certificates so they get updated in the church that baptized them.

 

[Phemie]

It was only when I started to work in a parish and had responsibility for writing Certificates of Baptism that I discovered that Baptisms were to be done in one’s own parish unless permission was received to have them done elsewhere. I was not aware of that when my first two were born. I simply took them back to the parish where I’d grown up and my former Pastor baptized them without question. He never even asked to what parish we belonged and I’m not sure he even knew that we belonged to the Military Ordinariate rather than to the diocese where we were residing.

Now that I’m responsible for baptismal preparation in my parish I often encounter parents who inform me that they are “going home” to have their child baptized. I make sure they are issued a letter of permission from the Pastor with the indication that they have done the preparation required by our parish.

 

[FrDavid96]

…
I have only to add that I assume this question must be from an American. The language of “main parish” is completely foreign to me…and to the Code of Canon Law, for that matter. For the vast majority of Roman Rite Catholics, the CANONICAL parish is established by domicile, as articulated above in Canon 107ff. One does not choose a canonical parish. There is also a relatively small percentage who would qualify to belong to a personal parish – normally I find that those people know who they are.
…

About that issue.

Yes, there is quite a bit of confusion about that matter on this side of the Atlantic. Some people are of the impression that they choose a parish as a matter of personal choice. Of course, that’s not how it works, but the misconception persists. Here on CAF that misconception is quite well-fed (in fact, it’s in the running to become the fattened calf).

Another thing to know is that personal parishes are quite common here. Because of our history of immigration, until recent times, it’s probably safe to say that we had more personal parishes than we did territorial ones–as a statistic. Most of our big cities, and most of the places where Catholics were concentrated had more ethnic parishes than they did territorial ones. In the last 20 years or so (and that varied greatly by location) there’s been a transition away from personal to territorial. Still, we do have quite a large number of personal parishes, some of them even new ones. Mostly, the new ones are being established for recent immigrants (and not always Spanish-speaking). In the past few months, my own diocese just established two new personal parishes, one Vietnamese and another Tagalog.

The other issue is quasi-domicile. Quite a large portion of our population keep 2 homes and move between them depending on the season, and that’s not just the wealthy. So, if they live in Vermont in the summer and Florida in the winter, they actually do have 2 parishes/pastors, one by domicile and another by quasi-domicile.

Just a little aside commentary about the differences on this side of the Atlantic.

(By the way, I know that you know the law. As I’ve done in my last few posts, I’ve included more information for the sake of others who might not).

 

[baliano]

Here we receive the sacraments in the parish in which we are registered parishioners, it may not be our Canonical (Territorial) parish. I will not attend my Canonical parish because of it’s progressive ethos so I am registered at a parish 10 miles away. Before the “spirit of Vatican II” so severely disrupted our Liturgical Tradition it wouldn’t normally have mattered but today there can be, and are, significant differences between parishes, from clown Masses to the TLM in scope.

The Canonical Parish concept is in need of review by the Church because it is outdated and commonly violated today and with valid reason; we are each responsible for our salvation, the parish we attend can have a significant bearing on achieving that goal.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Here we receive the sacraments in the parish in which we are registered parishioners, it may not be our Canonical (Territorial) parish. I will not attend my Canonical parish because of it’s progressive ethos so I am registered at a parish 10 miles away. Before the “spirit of Vatican II” so severely disrupted our Liturgical Tradition it wouldn’t normally have mattered but today there can be, and are, significant differences between parishes, from clown Masses to the TLM in scope.

The Canonical Parish concept is in need of review by the Church because it is outdated and commonly violated today and with valid reason; we are each responsible for our salvation, the parish we attend can have a significant bearing on achieving that goal.

I don’t find it in need of review at all. It works quite well in my part of the world.

I am sorry to hear that the canon law on this issue is violated where you live…it would seem the diocesan bishop and the presbyterate would do well to take action in the matter.

 

[Phemie]

I concur with what Fr. David96 has to say.

I grew up in a small village in eastern Canada. Before Vatican II, and for at least 3 deacades after, everyone who lived within the village boundaries was a member of the Paroisse St. François Xavier/St. Francis Xavier Parish. The parish was probably 80/20 French/English. I don’t recall hearing too many English homilies, or readings, pre Vat. II but with the promulgation of the “Novus Ordo”, Anglophone parishioners expected to hear Mass in their language at least occasionally. In our parish that meant at least one Mass per Sunday was bilingual. I don’t recall too many English only Masses, though we had French only ones. It still worked and it was the same in any of the neighbouring parishes which had a significant number of Anglophones. But it meant that the Bishop was under pressure to only install bilingual priests in those parishes, otherwise…

With the dearth of priests we are now experiencing in that diocese, parishes have now been deemed to be either French or English. For the small parish where I grew up, that means French. For the neighbouring town, that means one parish is now unilingual French and one is unilingual English. So any members of “St. Francis Xavier Parish” who want a Mass in their own language can now become members of St. John Bosco Parish in the neighboring town. And French members of St. John Bosco who still want Mass in their own language now become members of the “Paroisse Martyr Saint-Jean-Baptiste” across town and vice versa for the Anglophone members of St. John the Baptist Parish.

 

[jilly4ski]

Here we receive the sacraments in the parish in which we are registered parishioners, it may not be our Canonical (Territorial) parish. I will not attend my Canonical parish because of it’s progressive ethos so I am registered at a parish 10 miles away. Before the “spirit of Vatican II” so severely disrupted our Liturgical Tradition it wouldn’t normally have mattered but today there can be, and are, significant differences between parishes, from clown Masses to the TLM in scope.

The Canonical Parish concept is in need of review by the Church because it is outdated and commonly violated today and with valid reason; we are each responsible for our salvation, the parish we attend can have a significant bearing on achieving that goal.

Actually, in some US diocese, the bishops have already taken some action in dispensing with the territorial model and going for a registration model (where the parish you register in, becomes your Canonical Parish) either by outright telling the faithful that they may receive the sacraments anywhere they choose (by registering and becoming members), or by making it impossible for the faithful to discover which parish is their “territorial” parish.

 

[FrDavid96]

I don’t find it in need of review at all. It works quite well in my part of the world.

I am sorry to hear that the canon law on this issue is violated where you live…it would seem the diocesan bishop and the presbyterate would do well to take action in the matter.

Yes, it’s not the canon that needs to be changed.

What we need to change is the misconception that the canon doesn’t apply.

Pastors over here do a much better job of applying the canon and respecting their parish territory than one might think from reading posts here on CAF. I do need to mention that.

The long history of ethnic parishes contributes to the misunderstandings. I’m not being critical of the practice, indeed I think they were of great benefit and continue to be so, merely stating that it’s a reason.

I’m not defending the practice of ignoring parish boundaries. I’m merely giving a little bit of the history to put the conversation into context and to explain that while personal parishes might be very rare in the UK (as I infer from your posts) they are much more common over here.

 

[Phemie]

I’m not defending the practice of ignoring parish boundaries. I’m merely giving a little bit of the history to put the conversation into context and to explain that while personal parishes might be very rare in the UK (as I infer from your posts) they are much more common over here.

One thing I’m not clear on with personal parishes. Since, as you said, some towns and cities had mostly, if not only, personal parishes, if I was Polish did I have to be a member of the Polish Parish? Or could I be a member of another ethnic personal parish if, say, it was closer to my home? Obviously by doing that I would be giving up all expectations that my own ethnicity would be taken into consideration in any decisions made.

Similarly, for 23 years our family was part of the military and, as such, part of the Canadian Military Ordinariate “diocese”. As I understand the set up for that Ordinariate, it is responsible for all Catholic members of the Canadian military and their dependents regardless of whether they live on Base or not, are posted in Canada or not. For most of those years we attended the military parish on whichever Base to which we were posted. Except for the last 4 years hubby was in. For three of those we attended Mass and considered ourselves part of the “Communauté Catholique Francophone”, a community created by the local Archbishop and given a Chaplain. Not big enough a group to become a parish, we attended Mass at the school my children attended, a building that was the heart of the Francophone community in the area. Had it been large enough to be a parish it would have been a personal parish.

Our last year in the military saw us posted to a Base where there was no Catholic Padre. We had to attend Mass off Base and become part of the regular parish downtown. I gather it would have all been arranged between the Bishop of the Military Ordinariate and the bishop of the local diocese, I can’t see a bishop dumping part of his flock on another bishop without a “by your leave.”

 

[baliano]

Actually, in some US diocese, the bishops have already taken some action in dispensing with the territorial model and going for a registration model (where the parish you register in, becomes your Canonical Parish) either by outright telling the faithful that they may receive the sacraments anywhere they choose (by registering and becoming members), or by making it impossible for the faithful to discover which parish is their “territorial” parish.

When I checked with our Diocesan office I was told there was not a problem with registering and attending a parish other than our territorial parish and I have not heard of a local Pastor refusing to acknowledge such parishioners. We have changed Bishops since then so perhaps I should check again.

I respect Canon Law (hence the check with the Diocese) but to assume I must belong to a specific parish simply because I purchased a home within some arbitrary boundary seems archaic. With all the “modernizing” of the past 40+ years this seems like a pretty odd rule to insist upon.

 

[Vico]

When I checked with our Diocesan office I was told there was not a problem with registering and attending a parish other than our territorial parish and I have not heard of a local Pastor refusing to acknowledge such parishioners. We have changed Bishops since then so perhaps I should check again.

I respect Canon Law (hence the check with the Diocese) but to assume I must belong to a specific parish simply because I purchased a home within some arbitrary boundary seems archaic. With all the “modernizing” of the past 40+ years this seems like a pretty odd rule to insist upon.

The current canon law is from 1983, but has been revised a number of times since then, but not with regard to proper pastor and proper parish.

See this document PERMISSION FOR A CATHOLIC TO MARRY OUTSIDE HIS OR HER PROPER PARISH for what has to be done when it is desired to marry in a different parish than the proper parish:

dioceseofbaker.org/DIOCESAN_DOCUMENTS/perm_for_catholic_tobe_married_outside_his_her_proper_parish_rev_July2015.pdf

 

[baliano]

The current canon law is from 1983, but has been revised a number of times since then, but not with regard to proper pastor and proper parish.

See this document PERMISSION FOR A CATHOLIC TO MARRY OUTSIDE HIS OR HER PROPER PARISH for what has to be done when it is desired to marry in a different parish than the proper parish:

dioceseofbaker.org/DIOCESAN_DOCUMENTS/perm_for_catholic_tobe_married_outside_his_her_proper_parish_rev_July2015.pdf

We were married nearly 50 years ago; I was in the service, my wife was living with her parents, neither of us belonged to the parish where we were married, our total pre-marriage education consisted of about a 30 minute meet and greet with the priest. I guess, based on Canon Law and current pre-marriage requirements we not only have broken all the rules but our marriage could not possibly last.

I thought the Church was trying to get more people into church, not find ways to discourage them!

 

[Vico]

We were married nearly 50 years ago; I was in the service, my wife was living with her parents, neither of us belonged to the parish where we were married, our total pre-marriage education consisted of about a 30 minute meet and greet with the priest. I guess, based on Canon Law and current pre-marriage requirements we not only have broken all the rules but our marriage could not possibly last.

I thought the Church was trying to get more people into church, not find ways to discourage them!

There is no reason to believe that the priest made mistakes is there? If the marriage is valid, there should be no concern about it.
Nowadays, the military are in a personal parish. In 1986, St. Pope John Paul II promulgated the Apostolic Constitution Spirituali Militum Curae, What the US Catholic in the military does today is different:

milarch.org/site/c.dwJXKgOUJiIaG/b.9237809/k.CB73/Marriage.htm

 

[Phemie]

We were married nearly 50 years ago; I was in the service, my wife was living with her parents, neither of us belonged to the parish where we were married, our total pre-marriage education consisted of about a 30 minute meet and greet with the priest. I guess, based on Canon Law and current pre-marriage requirements we not only have broken all the rules but our marriage could not possibly last.

I thought the Church was trying to get more people into church, not find ways to discourage them!

The thing is that the priest you met with likely did all the paperwork that needed to be done for your marriage to occur where it did. The couple usually has no idea how much paperwork goes on when a couple says “We plan to get married in parish X, rather than here,” particularly when it’s not within the same diocese.

 

[utah_rose]

When I checked with our Diocesan office I was told there was not a problem with registering and attending a parish other than our territorial parish and I have not heard of a local Pastor refusing to acknowledge such parishioners. We have changed Bishops since then so perhaps I should check again.

I respect Canon Law (hence the check with the Diocese) but to assume I must belong to a specific parish simply because I purchased a home within some arbitrary boundary seems archaic. With all the “modernizing” of the past 40+ years this seems like a pretty odd rule to insist upon.

We belong to our nearby parish, but sometimes attend the TLM Mass at a nearby parish. Our local parish is gradually becoming more Spanish, although we still have English Masses. In a few years, if this continues we may register at another parish. The downside to this is you want your parish nearby because if you’re ill in a hospital it’s more convenient for a pastor or EM minister to visit and bring you the sacraments. We’re older so having a parish close to you and a pastor that knows you is probably better when you die and need that funeral Mass. That said, if you change parishes here you do need to notify the parish you’re registered in as well as the new one you’re registering at.

If a local parish was required here it could be confusing when traveling and attending a Mass in another state or country. And we do feel comfortable attending Mass at another parish because some have Mass on Sunday afternoon or evening, and that can be more convenient. But as far as being questioned by someone we never have, but usually tell the priest that were visiting and belong to another parish.

 

[utah_rose]

We were married nearly 50 years ago; I was in the service, my wife was living with her parents, neither of us belonged to the parish where we were married, our total pre-marriage education consisted of about a 30 minute meet and greet with the priest. I guess, based on Canon Law and current pre-marriage requirements we not only have broken all the rules but our marriage could not possibly last.

I thought the Church was trying to get more people into church, not find ways to discourage them!

We’ve been married 50 years also, and got married at the parish I grew up in. I think we had maybe two sessions with the priest before, and really didn’t know much either. At that time, I think it was much less important than now.